requirement on that area. Subserlucntlr,, the lst respondent has forwarded the represent:rtion oI ri.lc petitioner to th€ 2nd respondent who in turn for-u,zuclecl thc santc ttl thc 3,'1 responrlent and flnally to the 4ft respondent. The rcspondcnt No.4-Tahsildat, Kohir Mandal, after conducting cnqrlin', submitted a report dated 10. 12.2015 recommending the name ol the pe titioner to the Government for appointn'rcnt .ls Khazi for Kohir Mandal under Sections 2 and 3 of Khazis Act, 1880 and he ma.r' be allowed to work as additional Khazi in liohrr and connecte(l village to the extent of half share for convenience of the Muslim ctmmunit5r. But the 1st respondent, without consiclering the said report, passed orders vide Memo No.2670lEsrt IilA1l2014-2, datecl 26.04.2016 rejecting the application of the petitioner for appointment as Government Khazi to the extcnt of half area of Kohir Mandal, Medak District since there is no rule of succession or sharing as per the Khazis Act, 1880. Aggrieved by tJ e s;aid order, the petitioner approached this Court and fiied tJle present Writ Petition.
